FoundationalAnalyst ready to own a bounded workstream
Hand over a client analysis without prescribing every step
A manager needs an analyst to own an analysis for an upcoming client readout. The manager knows one workable method but wants the analyst to make appropriate decisions rather than copy a complete set of instructions.
What good looks like: The manager explains the outcome, relevant client context, fixed assumptions, available decision space, review point, and escalation triggers, then checks how the analyst plans to begin.
IntermediateConsultant who followed the instructions they understood
Reset work that answered the wrong question after a vague brief
The first draft is well executed but does not support the intended client decision. The original handoff left important context unstated, and the manager must correct the work without assigning all responsibility to the consultant.
What good looks like: The manager identifies the missing context, acknowledges the ambiguity in the brief, clarifies the decision the work must support, and agrees a focused revision that the consultant still owns.
AdvancedAnalyst whose work is close but needs a specific correction
Keep ownership with the analyst when the deadline moves forward
A client brings the readout forward. The manager could finish the analysis more quickly, but there is still enough time for a tightly bounded correction if the next step is clear.
What good looks like: The manager distinguishes essential changes from optional polish, sets a short review point, confirms support and escalation, and avoids taking back work solely because personal execution feels faster.
IntermediateHigh-performing consultant with limited client-room experience
Offer a client-facing stretch assignment with a real support plan
A capable consultant is ready to present part of a workstream, but the manager is unsure how much responsibility to transfer on a visible engagement milestone.
What good looks like: The manager makes the stretch explicit, defines which decisions and messages the consultant owns, explains where support will be available, and agrees how preparation and review will work.
AdvancedSenior consultant balancing several engagement priorities
Respond when a senior consultant pushes back on capacity
The manager delegates an important workstream, but the consultant says the assignment is not realistic alongside existing commitments. The manager must decide whether to reprioritize, change the scope, find another owner, or escalate the capacity conflict.
What good looks like: The manager explores the constraint, makes priorities explicit, avoids treating reasonable pushback as unwillingness, and reaches or escalates a clear decision about scope, timing, and ownership.
AdvancedConsultant receiving conflicting input from manager and partner
Clarify review rights when two leaders give different directions
A partner gives the consultant a direction that conflicts with the manager's brief. The consultant asks which instruction controls the work, exposing an unclear decision path inside the engagement team.
What good looks like: The manager does not ask the consultant to resolve the hierarchy alone, clarifies the temporary next step, takes responsibility for aligning with the partner, and returns with one decision and review route.
AdvancedPartner accustomed to the new manager doing the detailed analysis
Tell an engagement leader you will review the work, not produce it
A partner asks the manager to personally rebuild an important deliverable. The manager believes a team member can own the revision with close review and needs a decision that preserves both quality and the intended role structure.
What good looks like: The manager explains the proposed ownership and safeguards, makes the review plan concrete, surfaces any residual risk, and accepts the partner's accountable decision without making an unsupported promise.